galanter wrote:** "You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe." That's pretty close to it for me.

Where exactly does this "responsibility" come from, Galanter?

Skronk wrote:Where exactly does this "responsibility" come from, Galanter?

From its moral and intellectual supremacy, probably.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Damn. Don't you guys read Spider-Man? Geez.

Skronk wrote:

galanter wrote:** "You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe." That's pretty close to it for me.

Where exactly does this "responsibility" come from, Galanter?

I think this is a very interesting question. Somewhere on this board there was some discussion of the relationship of God to morality. For believers the reality of morality is easy...it comes directly from the ground of all being, God.

But for non-believers I tend to think morality is much more difficult. Most of us non-psychopaths have strong feelings of empathy that seem to be intrinsic to our being. And indeed there are reasons to believe that empathy has a strong biological and genetic basis. But that just explains where those feelings come from. It doesn't provide a *rational* basis for morality.

In the late 20th century this lack of a rational basis for morality was partially responsible for the birth of post-modernism and it's various cousins. So for someone like Foucault there is no objective basis for morality, there is only discourse and power.

But most here, from what I've seen, find such a view unattractive and simply don't believe in radical relativism. Most feel morality is real, and while they may not be able to provide ultimate rational proof, they are comfortable with a morality which is akin to "do on to others as you would have them do unto you." Perhaps this feeling is an expression of a biologically hardwired sense of empathy.

So for those folks, the golden rule folks, I'd offer the following which I posted on another board a while back.

"I'm going to give you the boiled down simple version. I'm not unaware of the complexities and nuances, but I want to give you the essence of my feelings on this matter.

First, you have to understand that there have actually been 2 wars in Iraq. The first one was to bump off Saddam. The second one is to fill the vacuum with something just and good.

For the first one...

I believe in the golden rule, and if I was an Iraqi living under Saddam for 25+ years I'd want some help in getting his boot off of my throat. And indeed that was the wish of most Iraqis. And thus doing so was a moral good.

For the second one...

I believe in the golden rule, and if I was an Iraqi living in the current circumstances I'd want the US to stay long enough to prevent Iran, Al Qaeda, the internal militias, and others from creating a slaughter that will make the current carnage look like a day at the beach. And indeed that is the current wish of most Iraqis. And thus doing so is a moral good."

Not that it matters, being a British Citizen, but it would seem my man is some fella I've never even heard of by the name of Chris Dodd. A close second is midget lothario Dennis Kuchinich.

My nemesis would be Fred Thompson, with whom I agree about absolutely nothing. I only got a match of 14 points with Mr Divisive, Ron Paul.

big_dave wrote:Ron Paul.

I assume this is a joke?!?!

On the other test, I was defined as:

Progressive/Conservative score: 12 Ultra Progressive
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist Score: 12 Socialist
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 3 Libertarian-leaning
Pacifist/Militarist score: Isolationist
You are a: Hardcore Democrat

Apparently, Kunicich is my man:

Dennis Kucinich - 94%
Barack Obama - 81%
Chris Dodd - 75%
John Edwards - 75%
Joe Biden - 69%
Hillary Clinton - 63%
Bill Richardson - 63%
Ron Paul - 56%

Ron Paul rides a lot higher; Chris Dodd goes down to third place; Barack Obama jumps up to second.

I am amused by the idea that I am an "Ultra-Progressive Socialist". I wonder, if I took this test in France or Spain, how would I be defined? Probably, "Moderate Progressive Centrist" or something. Funny old world.

galanter wrote:So for someone like Foucault there is no objective basis for morality, there is only discourse and power.

I'm not interested in addressing your other points, but this is a mischaracterization of Foucault insofar as it suggests he advocated relativism (or that it follows from his work). Leaving aside his active political commitments (regarding prisons, immigration, colonialism, etc.), the ethics and politics of his work are plain to anyone who actually reads him. That said, Foucault was no golden-rule guy, absolutely.

Like a lot of B.S. in the U.S. of Butchered Ideas, much of what is derided as "postmodern relativism" results from letting freshmen term papers stand in for French philosophy.

Elsewhere they refer to it as "Social Capitalist". For the purposes of this test I'd assume true socialists are off the scale, but it would be better if they had consistently used the "Social Capitalist" phrase. They also don't measure for true fascists on the other end.

I was thinking we could brag and see who got the lowest Ron Paul score, but then I saw that RR only got a 14, and mine's an 18, so I'm feeling kind of bad about myself.

Kucinich was my top. No surprise.

Hello!

slincire wrote:Political Compass

I got one line from the left and three from the bottom.

That's exactly where I am too!

Does that mean I have to agree with everything you say?

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I was thinking we could brag and see who got the lowest Ron Paul score, but then I saw that RR only got a 14, and mine's an 18, so I'm feeling kind of bad about myself.

Kucinich was my top. No surprise.

Hello!

My score for old ronnie was 5.